Shofar FTP Archive File: places/germany/language/sonderbehandlung.001

The Meaning of "Special Treatment," and similar terms
In article <9403160332.A4611wk@banished.com>, in twelve flavours,
and subsequent articles, Dan Gannon responded to a series of ten
questions which had been posted to the computer network over a
period spanning nearly two years.
In his response to questions which asked about the description of
Zyklon-B as material for the "resettlement" and "special treatment"
of Jews, and about the meaning of the terms "special treatment" and
"special action," Mr. Gannon invoked the tired arguments of
Holocaust denial.
We replied by asking Mr. Gannon if he meant to claim that the
code words "special treatment," "resettlement," and so on were
_never_ used to camoflage Nazi intentions of mass murder. Further,
we asked that he examine the evidence which we present here, and
refute it on a point-by-point basis.
We think it's clear that Mr. Gannon _did_ make this claim, as
evidenced by the following statement:
"Special treatment" ("Sonderbehandlung") was not a "code
word" and did not automatically mean "killing". It
meant a whole range of things...(Gannon, 10 Questions)
Mr. Gannon then cited volumes of information from various
Holocaust deniers, who have catalogued obscure cases in which the
code words meant something very different than what they normally
did.
With this tactic, we believe Mr. Gannon sought to confuse his
audience, instead of addressing the issue. Special cases, however,
are irrelevant, and have no impact on the chief meaning of these
code words, as we document here.
Mr. Gannon was asked to address cases which employed "special
treatment" and other euphemisms with reference to the Nazi
extermination effort.
These cases were enumerated as follows:
1. "Special treatment was killing, everyone knew that," says
Eichmann.
2. To save lives, Kaltenbrunner directs that "special treatment is
to be limited to a minimum."
3. Special treatment is "elimination," writes Heydrich.
4. A memo at the Reich Security Main Office explains "special
treatment" by the annotation "execution."
5. Special treatment should be carried out by hanging, says
Himmler.
6. A report from the Russian front equates special treatment with
"liquidation."
7. "No meaning other than killing," says former SS-Gruppenfu"rher
Mazuw.
8. "Everyone knew what it meant," says former SS-Obersturmfu"hrer
Hamann.
9. A letter from Himmler to Korherr asks that the term "special
treatment" not be used, as the meaning is too well known
10. An SS-Hauptsturmfu"hrer requests more gas vans for Jews to be
"treated in a special way."
11. A Gestapo memorandum requests that people "subject to special
treatment" be cremated.
12. The Adjutant at Auschwitz admits that "material for
resettlement of the Jews" meant Zyklon-B.
Sonderbehandlung - literally "special treatment." This is
probably encountered most often.
Umsiedlung - literally "resettlement."
Sonderaktion - literally "special action."
Evakuierung - literally "evacuation."
and, of course,
die Endlo"sung der Judenfrage - literally "the final solution
to the Jewish question."
In his response, Mr. Gannon offered Kaltenbrunner's comments about
French diplomats as his reponse to the "special treatment" of
European Jews -- the mind boggles at this logical leap. He
expected readers to swallow Faurisson's assertion that the Nazis'
"special treatment" was to help keep the Jews _alive_. This is,
obviously, contrary to fact:
Starvation was a permanent guest at Auschwitz. The diet fed to
I.G. Auschwitz inmates, which included the famous 'Buna Soup' -
a nutritional aid not available to other prisoners - resulted in
an average weight loss for each individual of about six and a
half to nine pounds a week. At the end of a month, the change
in the prisoner's appearance was marked; at the end of two
months, the inmates were not recognizable except as caricatures
formed of skin, bones, and practically no flesh; after three
months, they were either dead or so unfit for work that they
were marked for release to the gas chambers at Birkenau. Two
physicians who studied the effect of the I.G. diet on the
inmates noticed that 'the normally nourished prisoner at Buna
could make up the deficiency by his own body for a period of
three months....The prisoners were condemned to burn up their
own body weight while working and, providing no infections
occurred, finally died of exhaustion.' (Borkin, 125)
Was this Mr. Gannon's idea of behavior aimed at "keeping the Jews
alive?"
Perhaps, rather than quoting Faurisson in a vain attempt to
confuse the issue, Holocaust deniers should consider Adolf
Eichmann's comments... unless, of course, they are going to
claim that Eichmann doesn't qualify as an "expert" in "special
handling," while Dr. Faurisson does?
During his interrogation by the Israelis, the following question
was asked: What does "special treatment" mean, and who was
subjected to it? Eichmann's response is at variance with
Faurisson's, which comes as no surprise... it is interesting to
note here Faurisson's employment of the "if it sheds doubt on my
thesis, I will ignore it" technique of Holocaust denial is
telling... Consider Eichmann's answer:
Special treatment was killing. Who thought up the term - I
don't know. Must have been Himmler, who else could it have been
- but then, I have no proof, maybe Heydrich thought it up after
Go"ring gave him his authorization. But I really don't know.
I'm just trying to puzzle it out.
"Special treatment was killing." (What part of that do you suppose
Holocaust deniers do not understand?)
...his interrogator replied: But you knew special treatment meant
killing?
Eichmann's response: Everybody knew that, yes, Herr Hauptmann,
everybody knew. When a shipment was marked "for special
treatment," they decided at the point of arrival who was fit for
labor and who wasn't.
"Everyone knew that," except, apparently, Dr. Faurisson, Mr.
Gannon, and the Holocaust denial social set. (Kaltenbrunner
certainly knew it, too, hence his calculated and cynical attempt to
equate it with resorts, untouchable French diplomats, and
champagne.)
There is an interesting correlation between the use of "special
treatment" by the Nazis, and the similar employment of the words
"special healing procedure" (Besonderes Heilverfahren) as they
related to the shipment of disabled and mentally ill children to
Grafeneck and similar Nazi installation. Only a Nazi could use
such a term to describe the deliberate murder of thousands of
children! (See Conot, pages 204 to 207, for a detailed summary of
the term, and the horrible reality of its meaning.) Let's get back
to Mr. Kaltenbrunner, shall we? Since Holocaust deniers are fond
of quoting some of his Nuremberg testimony, it is apparent that
they consider him a valid source of information on this subject.
That's encouraging, in light of the following:
During the first two and one-half years of the occupation, the
security police in the government-general shot seventeen
thousand Poles, a figure that led Frank to comment: `We must not
be squeamish when we learn that a total of seventeen thousand
people have been shot; these persons who were shot were nothing
more than war victims.'(NCA, 2233 AA PS, Frank Journal, Jan.
25, 1943) In 1943, executions in Poland and Russia accelerated,
even though Kaltenbrunner directed that, `as a rule, no more
children will be shot [and] special treatment is to be limited
to a minimum.' So that this order would not be misunderstood, he
explained that `if we limit our harsh measures for the time
being, that is only done [because] the most important thing is
the recruiting of workers. (NCA, 3012 PS, To All Group Leaders
of the Security Service-SD, Mar. 19, 1943, cited in Conot,
276-278)
Let's take a look at the witness Kaltenbrunner, in light of Mr.
Gannon's assertion that "special treatment" equated with champagne
and bon bons, and Faurisson's silliness about keeping the Jews
alive...
Kaltenbrunner wanted to keep Poles alive so they can be employed as
slave labour. In order to affect this end, he orders that "special
treatment is to be limited to a minimum."
Isn't it ironic that Kaltenbrunner would order "special treatment,"
Dr. Faurisson's "keeping the Jews alive," to be "limited to a
minimum" in order to keep the Jews alive? What's wrong with
this picture?
On September 20th, 1939, SS-Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich sent a telegram
to Gestapo regional and subregional headquarters on the "basic
principles of internal security during the war." You can find this
in Nuernberg document 1944-PS. Paragraph four of the telegram
reads:
To avoid any misunderstandings, please take note of the
following: ...a distinction must be made between those who may
be dealt with in the usual way and those who must be given
special treatment. The latter case covers subjects who, due to
their most objectionable nature, their dangerousness, or their
ability to serve as tools of propaganda for the enemy, are
suitable for elimination, without respect for persons, by
merciless treatment (namely, by execution). (Kogon, 6)
On September 26th, 1939, a memo at a staff meeting held at the
Reich Security Main Office indicates which sections were to be
responsible for handling the "special treatments." Next to the
words "special treatment" are written, in parentheses, "execution."
This is Nuernberg document 905-PS. (Ibid.)
Paragraph A, section III of a memorandum from Heinrich Himmler,
dated February 20th, 1942, states: "Special treatment is carried
out by hanging." This is Nuernberg document 3040-PS. (Ibid.)
From "USSR Operational Report No. 124," dated October 25th, 1941,
page 6: "Due to the grave danger of epidemic, the complete
liquidation of Jews from the ghetto in Vitebsk was begun on October
8th, 1941. The number of Jews to whom special treatment is to be
applied is around 3,000." The original is in the Federal Archives,
ref. R 58/218. The meaning of "special treatment" is clearly
spelled out in many such reports from the eastern front. (Ibid.)
In a hearing on November 9th, 1962, former SS-Gruppenfu"rher Emil
Mazuw stated:
During the war, the SS gave no meaning to Sonderbehandlung other
than killing. I am certain that high-ranking officers knew it.
I don't know whether the ordinary SS man did or not. According
to the terminology used at the time, I understand 'special
treatment' to mean only killing and nothing else. (GStA
Frankfurt a/Main AZ: Jz 18/61, hearing of 9 Nov. 1962.)
In a hearing on May 4th, 1960, former SS-Obersturmfu"hrer Heinrich
Hamann stated:
Perhaps an explanation by the commander of the Security Police
in Cracow was required as to the meaning of 'special treatment.'
That's possible. But so far as I was concerned, I needed no
explanation. I knew this expression well from the time when I
was assigned to the Reich Security Main Office in Berlin. In
prominent cases, Himmler would write 'special treatment' in
green in the margins of the daily reports. That meant 'to be
liquidated.' I didn't have to explain the meaning of this term
to my subordinates at Neu-Sandez either. Everyone knew what it
meant. [StA Bochum AZ: 16Js 84/60, hearing of 4 May 1960.]
(Ibid., 7)
In fact, during the war the term "special treatment" was so
_commonly_ known as a euphemism for killing that Himmler decided to
replace it with "processed" (durchgeschleust). To that end, a
member of Himmler's staff, one SS-Obersturmbannfu"hrer Dr. Brandt,
wrote to Richard Korherr, the inspector of statistics on "the final
solution of the European Jewish question," on April 10th, 1943,
saying:
The Reichsfu"hrer-SS [Himmler] has received your statistical
report.... He wishes that absolutely no mention should be made
anywhere of "special treatment for Jews."
Page 9 should therefore read as follows: "Transportation of Jews
from the eastern provinces to the Russian East: "Processed
[durchgeschleust] through camps in the General Government...
through camps in the Warthegau..." No other formulation is to be
used.
The original letter is in the Federal Archives, ref. NS 19(neu) 1570.
(Ibid., 7-8)
We asked Mr. Gannon to enlighten us as to what sort of special
treatment the Jews were getting that was so dangerous that Himmler
wanted to even change the _euphemism_ used to describe it. To date,
Mr. Gannon has remained silent - a not uncommon tactic among those
who deny the Holocaust who find themselves confronted with
undeniable facts.
"Taking French lessons?" "Lessons in drinking champagne?" That
would mean, then, that the camps through which the Jews were
"processed," under the new euphemism, were not extermination camps
at all, but really schools of language and oenology. It seems a
little strange for the Nazis to take away Jewish property, forbid
them associations with non-Jews, destroy their shops, force them to
wear yellow stars, herd them onto trains, carry them into Poland,
often in the dead of winter, and deposit them into concentration
camps where even Mr. Gannon will admit that typhoid and starvation
killed hundreds of thousands...just so that all the Jews would be
better educated with respect to foreign cultures and alcoholic
beverages.
Seems a little silly, doesn't it?
In a letter from SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Truehe to the Reich security
office, room 2D3A, Truehe requests additional gas vans:
"A transport of Jews, which has to be treated in a special way,
arrives weekly at the office of the commandant of the Security
Police and the Security Service of white Ruthenia. The three
S-vans which are there are not sufficient for that purpose. I
request assignment of another S-van (five tons). At the same
time I request the shipment of twenty gas hoses for the three
S-vans on hand since the ones on hand are leaky already." (Nazi,
Vol. I, 1001)
Did Truehe need the additional gas vans to transport the champagne,
Mr. Gannon? Or perhaps to take the Jews to summer camp?
In a Memorandum of Gestapo Headquarters, 15 June 1944, the
following text appears:
In amending my directive of June 20 1944, I request that those
people subject to special treatment be sent to a crematorium to
be cremated if possible." (TWC, Vol. IV, 1166.)
One might ask Mr. Gannon, why, after providing their victims of
"special treatment" with gallon upon gallon of champagne, and
teaching them to speak proper French, the Gestapo would insist upon
their cremation?
To Judge Hofmeyer, who presided the "Auschwitz trial" in Frankfurt,
it was obvious what such documents meant. Here is a relevant
excerpt from the court proceedings:
"Judge Hofmeyer asks Mulka whether he had issued an order for a
trip to Dessau (the poison gas Zyklon-B was manufactured in
Dessau).
Mulka: 'I know of only one instance in which I issued a travel
order for picking up disinfectants from Dessau.'
Judge Hofmeyer, leafing through his papers: 'But I seem to have
more than one here. Is that your signature? You can look at
them.'
Mulka walks up to the bench.
'What does this mean on this travel order, 'material for
resettlement of Jews'?'
'What did you take this to mean?' Mulka, after an embarrassed
pause: 'Well, Zyklon-B.'
Judge: 'You see, until now you have maintained that you had
nothing to do with the gassings. But it isn't so. You signed a
number of things here.'" (Naumann, 242)
The argument employed by Mr. Gannon and his associates is
equivalent to claiming that an SS officer who told his soldiers to
"take the Jews out and kill them" is innocent of murderous intent,
because, a month before, he told those same soldiers, who were
preparing for a soccer game, to "go out there and kill them."
_Context_, Mr. Gannon, is everything.

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.